In re A.M.
R.S. (mother) has three children. In January 2006, when this dependency was originally filed, the oldest child was four, the middle child was two, and the youngest child was in utero. In December 2012, when the juvenile court made the orders that are challenged in this appeal, the children were eleven, nine, and six, respectively. The mother has been given seven years to reunify successfully, but she has failed to do so.
The challenged orders denied the mother’s “changed circumstances†petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388) and reduced her visitation. At that time, a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) had been set, but it had not yet been held. When the mother appealed, we stayed the hearing.
The mother’s changed circumstances petition merely alleged that she was in therapy; however, she had been in therapy, on and off, throughout the dependency. Thus, the petition fell woefully short of suggesting that she would ever be able to reunify. The juvenile court properly reduced the mother’s visitation because it was interfering with the children’s relationship with their prospective adoptive parents. This appeal wholly lacks merit. We therefore affirm the orders and vacate the stay. It’s time to get this show on the road.
Comments on In re A.M.